State Bank of India Vs Gourishankar Poddar (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that unilateral revocation of guarantee by the guarantor does not absolve him from his obligations under the guarantee agreement as the Financial Creditor has not agreed to such revocation.
Facts- In 1999, Raj Rayon Industries Limited- the Corporate Debtor, availed financial assistance from the State Bank of India in the form of term loans and working capital loans. On 10.07.2013, Mr. Gourishankar Poddar, in his capacity as a director of the Corporate Debtor, executed a Deed of Guarantee in favor of the SBI. This guarantee secured an increased loan amount of ₹292 crores, as agreed under the Sixth Supplemental Working Capital Consortium Agreement. The Corporate Debtor began defaulting on its repayment obligations in 2013. As a result, its account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 30.11.2013. This classification indicated the Corporate Debtor’s inability to service its debt, triggering the SBI’s right to enforce its security and guarantees.
Mr. Gourishankar Poddar submitted his resignation as a director of the Corporate Debtor on 06.03.2014. This resignation was formally accepted by the Corporate Debtor’s board of directors on 18.03.2014. Despite his resignation, Respondent No. 1 continued to remain liable under the 2013 Guarantee, as it was executed in his personal capacity, independent of his position as a director.
